monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

I'm still thinking that the Supreme Court reinstated (sic!) Trump's travel ban only for some immigrants - after having read the ruling again now and despite your rambling burp kind elaboration of legal terms and concepts.
Could well be a Pyrrhi victoria.

Most would-be immigrants will not have an existing connection to the US.

The Government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits—that is, that the judgments below will be reversed.

The Government has also established that failure to stay the injunctions will cause irreparable harm by interfering with its “compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.”

The Supreme Court’s decision to allow portions of President Trump’s travel ban to take effect is a win for the administration — but the impact will be far less severe than Trump’s first iteration of the measure.

That is because the high court effectively allowed Trump to ban from coming to the United States only citizens of six majority-Muslim countries “who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

It also nudged the president to complete his promised review of vetting procedures, which might mean the issue is resolved by the time the court is set to fully consider the ban in its October term.

For now, if you have a relative here, have been hired by a U.S. employer or admitted to a U.S. university, you can still probably get a visa. But if you’re applying cold as a visitor or through the diversity visa program, you probably can’t.

In the meantime, you should read it for what it says, not what you want it to say.

I'm still thinking that the Supreme Court reinstated (sic!) Trump's travel ban only for some immigrants

Crafting a preliminary injunction is an exercise of discretion and judgment, often dependent as much on the equities of a given case as the substance of the legal issues it presents...

Before issuing a stay, “It is ultimately necessary. . . to balance the equities—to explore the relative harms to applicant and respondent, as well as the interests of the public at large.”

The courts below took account of the equities in fashioning interim relief, focusing specifically on the concrete burdens that would fall on Doe, Dr. Elshikh, and Hawaii if §2(c) were enforced. They reasoned that §2(c) would “directly affec[t]” Doe and Dr. Elshikh by delaying entry of their family members to the United States.

Quote:

You seem vexed.

hightor wrote:

Oh Finn — you're such a clever fellow!

I know. It's part of what makes me so charming.

Quote:

Actually I don't mind admitting to being vexed by some of the posts I see on A2K, some of the opinion pieces I read, and some of the things I hear people say. And I use words to convey that vexation. Now "goddam" represents a rather low level of annoyance, my usual reaction to the person or bot which submitted the post I responded to.

Making fun of someone else's online persona and engaging in a pissing contest usually indicates a greater degree of irritation, as in my taunting joust with another member yesterday — although, to be honest, I sort of feel compelled to respond to him in the same dismissive way he treats me and anyone else he disagrees with. I assume he likes to be treated this way since it seems to be his stock and trade on this board. I have him on "ignore" but will respond occasionally when he comments on a post I've submitted. I doubt, however, that it affects my blood pressure — I was exaggerating for effect.

You don't have to explain your reaction to posts or individuals to me (and yes I realize I just invited a sarcastic retort). I don't really have a problem with people being irritated, annoyed, or even vexed by either what is going on in the world around them or what is written in this forum. How could I? I experience these feeling on a daily basis and am making no effort to curb them. I tweaked you on it (cleverly or otherwise) because it seems to me that you were doing with layman what Jacobson was doing with the Trumpists he found so vexing, implying that their reaction was on the border of (if not well into the realm) irrational thinking. Layman doesn't, at all, need Finn For The Defense and it wasn't then or now my intent to come to his rescue. I was responding to the tactic and not, necessarily, on behalf of laymen, who, as I've said, I agreed completely with in terms of his reaction to Jacobson. As I've also said, I don't think the use of "crock of ****" is a sign of imminent hyperventilation...certainly not anymore than using "goddamn." I don't know that I've ever seen you respond to anyone with unthinking rage, and it would be ridiculous, and not clever at all, to seriously suggest you had done so with your response.

Quote:

I've come to value several of the other rightists around here and I try to treat them respectfully. My — well "admiration" might be too strong a word — appreciation of you goes back a long time (remember the PUP threads? Roy Buchanan? Rama Fuchs?) and I know I can count on you to lay out conservative viewpoints in a well-reasoned, readable manner. Which I'll still probably disagree with. Sorry my writing isn't always up to the high standards you set in your serious responses but sometimes my microcephaly kicks in. It's a struggle.

I've no desire to join with you in a Mutual Appreciation Society, but, suffice it to say, that I wouldn't compose serious responses, or for that matter, tweak you if I didn't find your contributions to this forum well-reasoned, readable, and challenging. Sometimes replies like "Oh just shut up," or even "You're an idiot" are all some posts and some members deserve (although use of the "ignore" feature is probably a better response), but your microcephaly has yet to kick in enough for that to have ever been the case with you. (I am now wondering though if the Lenny Bruce avatar should be replaced with the image of Zippy the Pinhead). Whether we are united as being among the most well reasoned and readable members, or the most pretentious and affected, I enjoy both sparring and discussing issues with you even if there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that you are going to convince me of the lefty point of view being virtuous.

I do remember the PUP discussions, but only vaguely (I can't even recall what PUP stood for) and while I remember Roy Buchanan, I remember Rama Fuchs even more so. For some reason the word "exasperating" pops into my mind when I think of him, but maybe I'm confusing him with walter . My memory isn't as whip cracking as it once was, but I also seem to remember Abuzz hightor as more conservative, reasoned and readable than his A2K incarnation.

BTW - Because I appreciate you so much, here's an icon with which you might want to replace Lenny.



And if that's too generic and doesn't carry with it enough of the personal indentification you have with Bruce, there's always this one:

Justice Thomas wrote:

The Government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits—that is, that the judgments below will be reversed.

The Government has also established that failure to stay the injunctions will cause irreparable harm by interfering with its “compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security.”

The handwriting is on the wall, eh, Walt?

Edit: I made this post before reading Finn's most recent post, where he makes the same point, but there it is in the Justice's own words.

Justice Thomas, the most conservative justice there now that Scalia is dead.

The Palestinians do not have any right to vote in countries that they do not live in and are not citizens of.

It would be like an American living in America demanding that they be able to vote in Canadian elections.